Where's the fiscal conservative outrage on this? (F35 costs 400 billion so far)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dman8777

Senior member
Mar 28, 2011
426
8
81
Every time I hear anything about the F35, I can't help but think of the the Pentagon Wars :)

Does anyone seriously believe the US is going to fight a country with a modern air force in the next few decades? The only countries with capable air forces also have nuclear weapons and most are either allies or significant trading partners. If the defense industry is just going to be a jobs program, why not find something more constructive like infrastructure or space exploration?
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126

I did not say it was equipped for interstellar planetary defense. It is however equipped for national defense and air superiority. Which is vital for the continued existence of the beacon of the free world, the US of A.

If and when aliens do come, I'm sure it will be the USA that is first to develop a viable ship for the defense of the world, but to discuss such things now is ridiculous.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Every time I hear anything about the F35, I can't help but think of the the Pentagon Wars :)

Does anyone seriously believe the US is going to fight a country with a modern air force in the next few decades? The only countries with capable air forces also have nuclear weapons and most are either allies or significant trading partners. If the defense industry is just going to be a jobs program, why not find something more constructive like infrastructure or space exploration?

The only way to find out is if we don't remain vigilance with our national defense. Care to wager $1trillion on whether or not a nation with a modern enough air force would be willing to take us on if we were to slack on our national defense? I certainly wouldn't, as I said, $1trillion is cheap when you are talking about the continued existence of the USA.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,331
10,238
136
How can government control costs when there are really just 4 defense contractors to deal with.

Lockheed
General Dynamics
Northrupt Grumman
Boeing

They let some of the little guys get parts of the action for show.

Perpective from little guy.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
The only way to find out is if we don't remain vigilance with our national defense. Care to wager $1trillion on whether or not a nation with a modern enough air force would be willing to take us on if we were to slack on our national defense? I certainly wouldn't, as I said, $1trillion is cheap when you are talking about the continued existence of the USA.

You could justify ANYTHING with this kind of logic.

The F35 is a failure on a massive scale. It's almost exactly the same situation as the pentagon wars. It's a bomber whose internal bays are too small to carry too many bombs, a stealth plane, that is too large and has weapon hardpoints that compromise its stealth signature, a fighter that has tons of empty space and weight that compromises its ability to fly fast and turn quickly.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,011
558
126
The only way to find out is if we don't remain vigilance with our national defense. Care to wager $1trillion on whether or not a nation with a modern enough air force would be willing to take us on if we were to slack on our national defense? I certainly wouldn't, as I said, $1trillion is cheap when you are talking about the continued existence of the USA.

I care a lot if that $1 trillion could have been spent more efficiently on a few specialized airframes.

The F35 is an overly expensive Jack all trades, master of none.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
I care a lot if that $1 trillion could have been spent more efficiently on a few specialized airframes.

The F35 is an overly expensive Jack all trades, master of none.

That's what the second $Trillion is for. Nobody said the continued existence of this great nation would be cheap. There are people out to get us, we must protect ourselves accordingly.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
That's what the second $Trillion is for. Nobody said the continued existence of this great nation would be cheap. There are people out to get us, we must protect ourselves accordingly.

Protect ourselves against...what. Using a machine that can barely get in the air and is outperformed by last generation fighters.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
They need to cancel the program.

I can predict in 5 years after the first shipments of F-35's:

"We need specialized airframes. These general purpose ones are outperformed by the boogie man."

At least the contractors are getting rich on tax dollars. I suppose after all, that is the purpose.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
They need to cancel the program.

I can predict in 5 years after the first shipments of F-35's:

"We need specialized airframes. These general purpose ones are outperformed by the boogie man."

At least the contractors are getting rich on tax dollars. I suppose after all, that is the purpose.

Exactly right, but without the boogie man, we have no reference to gauge our military against, this can also apply to law enforcement and national security vis a vis terrorism. It is vital that we are constantly thinking of new ways that we can be attacked, so that we can protect against them, and keep this nation freer and stronger than ever.
 

squarecut1

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2013
2,230
5
46
Exactly right, but without the boogie man, we have no reference to gauge our military against, this can also apply to law enforcement and national security vis a vis terrorism. It is vital that we are constantly thinking of new ways that we can be attacked, so that we can protect against them, and keep this nation freer and stronger than ever.

Ah, I see now.

Yes, the eternal boogie man.....
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,011
558
126
Exactly right, but without the boogie man, we have no reference to gauge our military against, this can also apply to law enforcement and national security vis a vis terrorism. It is vital that we are constantly thinking of new ways that we can be attacked, so that we can protect against them, and keep this nation freer and stronger than ever.

we-have-always-been-at-war-with-eastasia.png
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
How can government control costs when there are really just 4 defense contractors to deal with.

Lockheed
General Dynamics
Northrupt Grumman
Boeing

They let some of the little guys get parts of the action for show.

Perpective from little guy.

You left a lot of big players off the list.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,271
323
126
F-35 equipped for air superiority? What kind of of superiority is that? Against the NK air force?

It should have been a dual engine plane from the start. Its not reliable enough for the navy, and the problem is its too slow and lacks agility mostly due to the single engine and insufficient thrust/weight ratio to establish air superiority against current generation threats.

Also the stealth aspect is completely worthless for the navy since the wealther out in the sea will degrade the radar absorbing paint and maintaining the coat in these conditions would reduce combat hours on the plane, so you need more planes just to maintain the same combat readiness level.

The other problem is the radar absorbing material is just a crutch against internally guided radar tracking missiles. Any long wavelength radar can track these planes like theres no stealth at all, and if the enemy air force can "fire and forget" long range AtA missiles and let ground or AWACS radars guide the missiles this stealth is bypassed altogether. In short range the turn speed, acceleration, and overall agility of this plane is just too inferior to lighter single engine and larger dual engine jets, and they can use IR missiles in short-medium range which nullifies the short-wave radar stealthiness of the plane.

I say bring back the F-22.
 
Last edited:

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
it's only 45 states; Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Louisiana have no part suppliers.
https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map

The defense industry learned well from the cancellation of the B-1 bomber program in the '80's. They sub-contracted parts to as many states as possible, and voila, the B-1 was back in production. Nevermind that it has never been effective in combat and has been grounded a lot.
The only reason to build f-35 or f-22 is because we sell our best planes to potential enemies.
OMG they are catching up, we need a better plane.
 

who?

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2012
2,327
42
91
Having one aircraft that can perform many roles increases production volume which should decrease costs.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Any long wavelength radar can track these planes like theres no stealth at all, and if the enemy air force can "fire and forget" long range AtA missiles and let ground or AWACS radars guide the missiles this stealth is bypassed altogether.

Not really 100% true at all. I say this as somebody that has designed the digital receiver cards for two fielded radars. Not everyone should take Pierre Sprey at his word.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Every time I hear anything about the F35, I can't help but think of the the Pentagon Wars :)

Does anyone seriously believe the US is going to fight a country with a modern air force in the next few decades? The only countries with capable air forces also have nuclear weapons and most are either allies or significant trading partners. If the defense industry is just going to be a jobs program, why not find something more constructive like infrastructure or space exploration?
A modern air force, probably not, although preparing only for likely threats would leave us very vulnerable to attack by those nations with modern air forces. A more likely point is that Russia, China and France have spread a LOT of sophisticated air defense equipment across the world, and ability against those is critically important.

F-35 equipped for air superiority? What kind of of superiority is that? Against the NK air force?

It should have been a dual engine plane from the start. Its not reliable enough for the navy, and the problem is its too slow and lacks agility mostly due to the single engine and insufficient thrust/weight ratio to establish air superiority against current generation threats.

Also the stealth aspect is completely worthless for the navy since the wealther out in the sea will degrade the radar absorbing paint and maintaining the coat in these conditions would reduce combat hours on the plane, so you need more planes just to maintain the same combat readiness level.

The other problem is the radar absorbing material is just a crutch against internally guided radar tracking missiles. Any long wavelength radar can track these planes like theres no stealth at all, and if the enemy air force can "fire and forget" long range AtA missiles and let ground or AWACS radars guide the missiles this stealth is bypassed altogether. In short range the turn speed, acceleration, and overall agility of this plane is just too inferior to lighter single engine and larger dual engine jets, and they can use IR missiles in short-medium range which nullifies the short-wave radar stealthiness of the plane.

I say bring back the F-22.
I largely agree with this. I think it's insanity to try morphing a single engine Air Force fighter into a naval fighter, which really needs dual engines and the ability to withstand controlled crashes. Adding STO/VTOL to the mix is insanity squared. I disagree about the long wave radar. Very powerful radars can always pick up this plane, but we're also pretty good at shutting down such radars quite quickly.

I do agree we should have built far more F-22 fighters, a much lighter replacement for the F-16, a twin engine long range replacement for the F/A-18, and a STO/VTOL replacement for the Harrier. The current commonality does not come close to offsetting the compromises required.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,699
136
Having one aircraft that can perform many roles increases production volume which should decrease costs.

Commonality was supposed to be something like 70%....now it's down somewhere in the 30% range IIRC.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Commonality was supposed to be something like 70%....now it's down somewhere in the 30% range IIRC.
Highest estimate I've seen is around 30%, lowest I've seen is around 15%.
Haven't looked at it lately though.